1.Steve
Walker complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3
(Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “FAKE
NEWS TYCOON Boss of pro-Corbyn conspiracy website is entrepreneur who cashed in
on NHS privatisation” published on 5 July 2017.

2.The
article reported that the complainant was the individual behind a “pro-Corbyn
conspiracy website”. It said that the website had spread “fake news”, such as
the false claim that the government had attempted to cover up the number of
people who had been killed in the Grenfell Tower fire, and had criticised any
attempts to involve private firms in the NHS. It named the complainant as the
individual concerned, and included photographs of him.

3.The
complainant said that the article had inaccurately reported that his blog had
“falsely claimed that the Ministry of Defence had issued a D-notice”, an
official request to editors not to publish sensitive information. He said that
the article made no such claim; rather, it had made clear that it was reporting
claims made by others, which had not been substantiated. He had not published
“false claims”; the report of the claims was true; and when the claims were
proven to be unfounded, the blog was amended. He also objected to the article’s
assertion that he had not checked whether the claims were true as the blog had
made clear that the government had been contacted for comment, but none had
been forthcoming.

4.The
complainant also expressed concern that the article had included images taken
from his Facebook profile without consent.

5.The
complainant also said that the publication of this article, which he believed
contained false information, amounted to harassment of him and his business.

6.The
publication said that the complainant’s blog had stated that “multiple sources”
had said that the government had issued a D-notice; clearly suggested that the
government’s delayed response to his enquiry about the D-notice was suspicious;
said “every instinct is screaming” that the allegation was true; and proposed
reasons why the government might want to engage in a cover up, stating “is the
Tory government inflating its own party interests into a national security
issue in order to control the flow of information that will damage the Tory
government”. It considered that the complainant could not distance himself from
the story by asserting that the article reported claims made by others. It
added that, in any case, its article had noted that the blog had characterised the
allegations as claims.

7.The
publication said that it was entitled to characterise the claims made by the
blog as “fake news” as it had quickly transpired that the claims were baseless.

8.With
regards to the pictures, the publication said that they were sourced from the
complainant’s open Facebook site and from social media relating to the
complainant’s business.

Relevant
Code provisions

9.Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not
to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including
headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy,
misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving
IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply
to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to
editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture
and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)

i) Everyone is entitled to
respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and
correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to
justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account
will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to
photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places
where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 3 (Harassment)

i) Journalists must not engage in
intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in
questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to
desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If
requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.

Findings
of the Committee

10.The Committee noted the
complainant’s concern that the newspaper had accused him of spreading “fake
news stories” such as “false claims” that the government had issued a D-notice,
when his blog had made clear that he was
reporting claims that a D-notice had been issued. However, as these claims,
which the complainant had repeated, had proven to be untrue, it was not
significantly misleading for the newspaper to have said that the complainant
had “spread” “fake news”. There was no breach of the Code on this point.

11.The Committee also noted that the
complainant’s blog had strongly suggested that the claims were true: it had
said “every instinct is screaming that [the claims are true]”. Given that the
complainant had endorsed the credibility of the claims and had effectively
adopted them, the Committee did not consider that it was significantly
misleading for the publication to have reported that the complainant had “claimed”
that the government had issued a D-notice. There was no breach of the Code on
this point.

12.The Committee noted that the
article had stated that the complainant had not checked whether the D-notice
claims were true before publishing them on his blog, when the blog had made
clear that he had attempted to contact the government for its comment. However,
the newspaper was entitled to take the view that insufficient steps had been
taken to check the claims before publishing them. Given that the claims had
proven to be false, this was not a significant inaccuracy which required correction.
There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on this
point.

13.The
publication had published images that had been taken from the complainant’s
Facebook profile and from social media sites relating to the complainant’s
business. The images showed the complainant’s face and they did not disclose
information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy
in breach of Clause 2.

14.Clause 3 generally relates to the
conduct of journalists in the news gathering process. The publication of this
article, reporting on the complainant’s business interests and blog, did not
represent harassment in breach of Clause 3.

This website uses cookies that provide necessary site functionality and improve your online experience. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Our cookies notice provides more information about what cookies we use and how you can change them.